Lyons: Ban not yet in effect, but less street begging already

The glut of median-strip beggars mysteriously dwindled rather suddenly in the past week or so.

Tom LYons

Much as I'd love to take credit, I assume I had little to do with the big reduction in panhandlers hitting up drivers at major Sarasota-area intersections.

The ACLU has noticed it, and lots of other people have, too.

Sure, I wrote that everyone ought to stop supporting the booming street-begging industry. But I doubt that did it.

I also doubt the new city ordinance that will ban panhandling in and near traffic is the explanation. The glut of median-strip beggars mysteriously dwindled rather suddenly in the past week or so, before city commissioners even passed that ordinance. And it doesn't take effect until Monday.

Some people have argued that the reduction in traffic hustling is a seasonal migration. When Florida gets too hot to do without air conditioning, and the rainy season is looming, people who sleep in the woods often go north.

But the decrease seemed awfully sudden. Did 70 percent of our most persistent panhandlers suddenly get on a bus?

Could be. And maybe some combination of heat, rain, expected police harassment and reduced profits because of growing public distaste for rampant begging all played a part.

Whatever the case, the question is whether the many experienced professional beggars will return in similar numbers at some point. And, if so, will they have to contend with that city's new ordinance designed to stop them from soliciting money from drivers at all?

Maybe not, says Michael Barfield, the often-quoted representative of the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. By then, the ACLU may have gotten a court to consider an argument — not formally made, yet — that the new law illegally outlaws a form of free speech.

Barfield says he has mixed feelings about this ban himself. He has much the same fidgety reaction to roadside panhandlers that many drivers have. He does not enjoy the unspoken message that it is heartless and mean to ignore them.

He says he used to give money sometimes. Now he doesn't, for reasons much like mine. The cash is too likely to buy drugs or alcohol for people who have messed up their lives with it, and who are making themselves unemployable that way.

But while not handing them money is fine, barring people from asking is a whole other matter. Soliciting money — if not done through intimidation or the like — is protected free speech, just as is talking about religion or politics, Barfield says.

And, the areas close by public streets are prime for communicating messages of all sorts, as advertising and political signs prove. There may be lots of messages we don't agree with or like, but that's no lawful basis for banning either the message or the messenger, Barfield argues.

“The First Amendment is about being uncomfortable,” Barfield said. No one tries to ban communication they are comfortable with.

I've argued that everyone, firefighters with boots included, should be banned from collecting money on streets crowded with cars. But the ACLU has a point: Safety is mostly a pretense. The bigger impetus is a desire to keep beggars from bugging us, even if just by standing in a median and making us feel, well, whatever we feel.

Some judges may decide roadway safety is a valid justification for banning physical interactions — handing over cash right then and there — between pedestrians and motorists. But details of the ordinance could matter, and the version passed takes a chance, I think.

The ACLU offered advice for crafting the law so that the the organization would not soon try to overturn it. City Attorney Bob Fournier says some of the advice was taken, but not all.

The part not ACLU-friendly: Police will be allowed to arrest soliticitors who have not been seen entering the roadway or collecting anything from people in cars. Just holding a sign that seems to encourage on-the-spot donations is enough.

That's probably not going to fly, Barfield told me.

“It is content based,” he said, meaning the city is improperly criminalizing harmless communication based on a message they don't like.

That is debatable, of course. A sign-holder's intent may matter, and the sign used can be part of the evidence. If a judge decides a sign that says “God Bless” or “Hungry” or “Vet needs help” is not enough to prove he was seeking cash handouts from drivers, so be it.

Sarasota cops may then have make arrests only after they see money change hands. Even then, a judge just might decide that, when traffic is stopped, handing cash out of a window is not enough of a safety issue to justify the ban.